


Being Your Parent's Favorite

by yourlibrarian



Category: 30 Rock, Supernatural, The Office (US)
Genre: Gen, Meta, News Media, Publicity
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2016-05-08
Updated: 2016-05-08
Packaged: 2018-06-07 05:36:52
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 2,170
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/6787735
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/yourlibrarian/pseuds/yourlibrarian
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>SPN has recently landed on a few top TV shows lists.  I have mixed feelings about that.  On the one hand it really deserves much more attention than it's ever gotten.  Flaws aside, there are a lot of shows on TV that get a lot of continual attention, some of them long after the show is past its prime.  What this has touched off though is my mixed feelings about promotional attention and merit when it comes to TV programming.  Being a longtime Buffy fan, it kind of annoys me how much attention the show still gets from the media when, back when it was still on, ratings weren't very high and it got a pretty low level of attention from the Hollywood promotional machine.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Being Your Parent's Favorite

**Author's Note:**

> Originally posted on December 17, 2008

SPN has recently landed on a few top TV shows lists. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand it really deserves much more attention than it's ever gotten. Flaws aside, there are a lot of shows on TV that get a lot of continual attention, some of them long after the show is past its prime. What's more, while I felt that S3 would probably have been a weak season regardless of the writer's strike, there aren't many shows that are still going strong into S4 and holding my attention. I'm hoping for its own sake that the second half of the season delivers for people who may be checking it out for the first time.

What this has touched off though is my mixed feelings about promotional attention and merit when it comes to TV programming. Being a longtime Buffy fan it kind of annoys me how much attention the show still gets from the media when, back when it was still on, ratings weren't very high and it got a pretty low level of attention from the Hollywood promotional machine. That said, Buffy was a household name compared to SPN. I still remember that when the Buffy musical aired our local newspaper had a large front-page photo of Buffy and Spike in the Entertainment section with a brief article about the episode. There were also a lot of good critical reviews about the show, enough that I'd heard of it before I ever got a chance to watch the series (also in its 4th season). Perhaps it's simply a matter of survival. Buffy got 7 seasons, which is quite good by TV standards. I don't have any statistics but I'd guess only 5% of shows that launch on the networks (or now on cable) ever make it that far, even though most all have a 5 year target for the syndication cash. So by the time it got into S6, Buffy had been an option in front of enough eyeballs that more and more people had given it a shot.

By comparison, I'd be willing to bet SPN has had a bare handful of newspaper articles written about it in its nearly 4 years (I'm not talking about online interviews or episode blurbs and promos). Has it ever been on E! or other major promo outlets? I think JA's appearance on Jimmy Kimmel has to be the most high profile talk show appearance they've done, right? In general anything on the CW gets overlooked, though maybe Top Model gets a lot of publicity, I wouldn't know. Most of the publicity its shows get seem to be things the CW has to pay for, such as ads and billboards, and certainly there's been very little of that for SPN. 

One thing that amazed me this past fall is that SPN got such a minor bump [from its Q rating](http://www.nypost.com/seven/09192008/tv/serial_thriller_129712.htm). Such an overlooked show ranking in the top 10 was _phenomenal_. The surprise of it was noted in the articles that discussed that news release, but did it lead to a whole lot more promotion or news interest in SPN? No it did not. 

On the other hand we have 30 Rock. In a top TV list from (I think) the Dallas newspaper, SPN was listed at 8 and 30 Rock at 7 (Lost was #1 and, interestingly, the only show the non-TV critic in the article watched out of the Top 10 list). I firmly agree 30 Rock should be on the list and probably higher than that. Also, even though it is a comedy and SPN is a horror-action show, I will admit that comparatively 30 Rock is a much better show overall. (Of course it's also a half-hour show with rather minor budgetary needs but that's another discussion). I personally really enjoy it, and think it's about time we get a character like Liz Lemon on screen.

I mentioned when discussing the Emmys that I found it rather surprising that 30 Rock swept the awards this year. Now normally when a show I enjoy gets lots of awards, this is a cheerful thing. And it's not like I felt the show was somehow undeserving. Whether or not shows are of award-winning quality has never been my primary consideration in viewing but many of them do merit it. What's more Tina Fey, thanks to the bizarre twist of political fate that brought Sarah Palin to our disbelieving attention, has become even more of a television "It" girl. This too is a cheerful thing since I'm all for the greater clout of women in the industry, and she's not just a comedian but writer and producer as well. 

So why, I have to ask myself, do I feel a little irritable when I see major guest star after major guest star being touted for their upcoming appearances on the show? I realize that NBC is trying to give it lots of promotion because (A) It's starting the season late (B) It's never had ratings to match its buzz in the entertainment industry and (C) With a lot of returning shows struggling to keep their viewers, 30 Rock might actually end up playing to the "dozens and dozens" of viewers Fey thanked at the 2007 Emmys. 

Part of the problem is the "winner takes all" mentality that seems to be creeping into the entertainment business in general. This can be seen in the concentration on blockbuster films. I heard a review on NPR of the recent Kristin Scott Thomas film, and the reviewer commented on how this film had to be made in France because Hollywood just doesn't do these sorts of character-based melodramas anymore. Yet they could make many more of these smaller films, at reasonable profits, than these large expensive ones which aren't any more of a sure thing.

I have to take a moment for a digression about this Thomas film. I am 100% with Jon Stewart about charges of "elitism" being tossed about in political discourse – especially when it was about Barrack Obama by John McCain. Should we think a lack of intelligence is a qualification for leadership positions? But there is truth to the charges of how oblivious people can be about the audience they are speaking to. The Thomas film review aired a clip of the film. In French. On the radio. I am pretty sure out of the small number of Americans that would go see a foreign language film in the first place, 90% of them will not speak the language the film is in, even if that's French. (Yes, it's a sad truth, but it's reality). They will be reading the subtitles. Hell, even I would be reading the subtitles and I am familiar enough with French that I could understand the clip. What was the purpose of airing it? What was the listener supposed to get out of it except perhaps the idea that "I would be lost watching this film, it's not for me"?

Back to the main issue. Television has been doing the same, generally putting most of its marketing and budgeting dollars behind a handful of key shows and letting the rest stumble along as they may. In this respect I think most cable channels are better off because they only have a few original programs and so can give them more equal attention. Yet even with all the potential air time, projects can have few homes. I remember Jane Espenson discussing how the miniseries Recount was a risky writing choice because there would be only one possible buyer for it –- HBO. I found that astounding.

I've been noticing awards shows also following this concentration of attention on just a few films/shows which get numerous nominations across categories while other potential nominees get shut out completely. And this seems to have more to do with marketing and promotion than any kind of merit. So I was thinking about the case of The Office which often precedes 30 Rock (in the weeks when NBC didn't completely screw up the scheduling). In the past it also got some nominations and had buzz too. The two shows are, I think, similar in their sensibility. Both are well cast, and they are, in short, quality products. 

In truth I prefer 30 Rock. I love the depiction of Fey's character and Alec Baldwin has to be feeling thankful every week that he's landed such a great gig. By comparison I find that The Office's humor walks a line between hilarious and unwatchable, and despite its large cast of quirky characters I don't think I identify with any of them. (Having said that, one of the funniest moments to me recently was when Jim was torturing Dwight by talking about BSG and totally screwing up all its details. I am _clearly_ a fannish geek because it was almost as unbearable to me too.)

However I feel that The Office tries to do more with its writing than 30 Rock. I can't help thinking that Rock benefits from the fact that it is a TV comedy about a TV comedy, whereas the Office is about middle-city losers at a struggling, unglamorous company (little wonder this began as a British series). Rock remains largely a comedy whereas Office blends comedy and drama to produce unexpectedly poignant moments and actual character development. And I think it is for this reason that Office has a notable creative fandom while 30 Rock does not. Long running comedies do have character development, and comedies going back to (at least) MASH and All in the Family have combined comedy, drama and even profound statements about culture and humanity. But most of this combination happens in small doses and character development tends to occur at a glacial pace compared to dramas. In fact, I'd say if the show you're watching doesn't do these things what you're seeing is a procedural, an action-adventure show, or some other genre. And I think that watching characters _live_ is what makes people the most fannish, whereas most comedies are focused on situations and gearing actions towards the punchline. The characters are vehicles rather than the focus.

So while I feel The Office is breaking new ground, I really don't think that about Rock. To me it seems like a modern version of the Mary Tyler Moore show, only less ambitious. Back in the 70s the MTM show was itself a quality product, known for its good writing and acting, focusing on a working woman trying to make her way through modern life. It was set in a TV newsroom though. I can't help thinking that Rock would have been more compelling if it had followed a similar route. For one, the difference between entertainment and news now on TV is paper-thin. The morning shows, for example, fall under the entertainment division and these platforms are used for tremendous cross-promotion. While entertainment types are perfectly believable when being divas or crazies, there's no less backstabbing and drama going on at news organizations. Having Liz Lemon being the producer of the Today show, for example, seems hardly a stretch at all with its musical performances, cooking demonstrations, celebrity visitors and product promotions. 

What gets said about the industry though could be so much more cutting and topical. Sure 30 Rock's episode about product placement was funny and pointed. But really, this issue is almost retro. Cheesily done product placement (think Colbert and Doritos) can be amusing. Characters using products in their everyday lives seems to me a much more honest form of advertising than the sort of negatively targeted ads that convince people a product is necessary by way of making them feel awful about themselves, or making absurd claims for its properties. Having a news producer feel pressured to promote products created by a subsidiary and pass it off as news? A little closer to the bone. In the end the Office turns on creating discomfort in its viewers. Rock seems to turn on making the industry feel better about themselves. I suspect that is the reason for its tremendous popularity within the entertainment industry, and the reason a struggling (if deserving) show is being given so much help from its network (which, after all, is itself being promoted within a show named after its headquarters). 

By comparison I suspect shows like Buffy or SPN do not make industry types feel good about themselves, either because they "don't get it" or, even if they do, they are not shows the networks want defining them or as their flagship shows. And since promotional vehicles like magazines and entertainment networks are in the business of getting sales or ratings of their own, they tend to promote stuff that is already popular and will draw eyeballs. More goes to those who have more, and those who have less get less. And if those lesser shows don't happen to be someone's darling? They can forget getting any boost at all, no matter what its audience thinks.


End file.
